Prof H.S.Shankar - hss@iitb.ac.in

Department of Chemical Engineering IIT-Bombay

Tel No 91-22-25767239,25768239

SOIL BIOTECHNOLOGY OF IIT, BOMBAY

CONTENTS

• PRINCIPLES

• WATER PURIFICATION

• PROCESSING OF SOLID RESIDUES

• AGRICULTURE

• SUMMING UP

A natural water bodyA natural water body

A river system once a life line now in distress due to nutrient overload from agriculture

A river system once a life line now in distress due to nutrient overload from agriculture

A natural water body in the process of decay A natural water body in the process of decay

A natural water body converted to land due to nutrient overload

A natural water body converted to land due to nutrient overload

Global Carbon Cycle (Meilli, 1995)Source: Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology, Vol.1, Academy press, 1995, pp.235-248

Global Carbon Cycle (Meilli, 1995)Source: Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology, Vol.1, Academy press, 1995, pp.235-248

Fossil Fuels 4,000

Plants500

CO2 Dissolved 4,000

Live 1-5

Dead Organics Reserve in Soil

1,576Quantities in 1015g

Photosynthesis

Dead Organics in Soil

6110

50

90

50 - 6550 18

CO2 in the Atmosphere

750

Respiration

Animals100-150

(50 y) (2 y)

(300 y)

(1 y)

(0.2 y)

(1- 10 y)

1. Water 500 kJ/g live C. yr

2. Land 3 kJ/g live C. yr

ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN DIFFERENT HABITATS

Discharge (vf )

Reactor

Feed (vf )

C2

Recycle (vr )

C1

1.Raw water

2.Raw Water slurry

3. Air scrubbing

4. Leachates of solids

5. Waste water

SCHEMATIC OF WATER RENOVATION

T1 R1 T2 R2 T3 T4R3

T1

R1

T2

R2

T3 T4

R3

SCHEMATIC OF MULTISTAGE PURIFICATION

LARGE SCALE FACILITY FOR SEWAGE RENOVATION

Respiration(CH2ONxPySzKyQ)n + nO2 + nH2O + Micro-organisms =

nCO2 + 2nH2O + Mineral (N, P, S, K,Q) + Energy

PhotosynthesisnCO2 + 2nH2O + Minerals (N,P, S,K,Q) + Sunlight =

[CH2ONxPySzKyQ]n + nO2 + nH2O

Chemical Mineral weatheringCO2 + H2O = HCO3

- + H+

Primary mineral + CO2 + H2O = M+n + n HCO3 - + soil/sand/clay

MAJOR CHEMICAL REACTIONS AT WORK

Crop Mineral

% DM N

% DM Water

ton / ton DMYield

ton DM / haSubabul 0.5 – 0.8 Small 50 20

Sugarcane 1.5 – 2.0 Small 400 18 Corn 5.0 – 6.0 0.3 – 0.5 200 14

Wheat 9 – 11 0.3 – 0.5 600 12 paddy 18 - 20 0.3 – 0.5 1000 9

* * DM – Dry Matter Yield is total biomass-grain, straw etc.

BIOMASS YIELD, MINERAL CONTENT, NITROGEN CONTENT, WATER CONSUMPTION FOR SOME CROPS

CHEMISTRY OF SBTRespiration(CH2ONxPySzKy)n + nO2 + nH2O = nCO2 + 2nH2O + Mineral (N, P, S, K) + Energy (1)

PhotosynthesisnCO2 + 2nH2O + Minerals (N,P, S,K) + Sunlight =

[CH2ONxPySzKy]n + nO2 + nH2O (Photosynthesis) (2)Nitrogen FixationN2 + 2H2O + Energy = NH3 + O2 ( in soil) (3)N2 + 2H2O + Light = NH3 + O2 (in water) (4)

Acidogenesis4C3H7O2NS + 8H20 = 4CH3COOH + 4CO2 + 4NH3 + 4H2S + 8H+ + 8e- (5)

Methanogenesis8H+ + 8e- + 3CH3COOH + CO2 = 4CH4 + 3CO2 + 2H2O (6)

Adding 5 and 6 give overall biomethanation chemistry4C3H7O2NS + 6H20 = CH3COOH + 6CO2 + 4CH4 + 4NH3 + 4H2S (7)

Mineral weatheringCO2 + H2O = HCO3

- + H+ (8)Primary mineral + CO2 + H2O = M+n + n HCO3

- + soil/clay/sand (9)

NitrificationNH3 + CO2 + 1.5O2 = Nitrosomonas + NO2

- + H2O + H+ (10) NO2

-+ CO2 + 0.5O2 = Nitrobacter + NO3- (11)

Denitrification4NO3

- + 2H2O + energy = 2N2 + 5O2 + 4OH - (12a)NO2

- + NH4+ = N2 + H2O + energy (12b)

The trinity – showing importance of combining organics, inorganics & suitable life forms to derive

value from wastes

The trinity – showing importance of combining organics, inorganics & suitable life forms to derive

value from wastes

Energy Input M k cal / ha

Crop

Fossil Labour Total

Yield kg / ha

OutputM cal / ha

Efficiency(-)

Wheat(USA) 3.77 0.002 3.772 2284 7.5 2.2

Wheat(India) 0.256 0.1845 0.4405 821 2.7 6.25

Rice(USA) 15.536 0.009 15.545 5796 21.0 1.35

Rice(Phil) 0.582 0.1728 0.754 1655 6.0 7.69

Potato(USA) 8.90 0.018 8.92 26208 20.2 2.27

Cassava(Tanga) 0.016 0.385 0.401 5824 (Dry) 19.2 50.0

Source: Energy in agriculture, Lockeritz (ed.) International Congress energy in agriculture Missouri, 1975-76

ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR FOOD CROPS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Yield , Ton/ha

0

10

20

30

40

50

60E

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy Wheat,USA

Rice,USAPotato,USAWheat,IndiaRice,PhillipinesCassava,Tanga

Direction of

Increasing biological potential

Yield -Efficiency correlation for some cropsYield -Efficiency correlation for some crops

Organics and rock particles

Bioprocessing by the two types of organismsSource: Bhawalkar (1996)

Bioprocessing by the two types of organismsSource: Bhawalkar (1996)

Organics

Residual organics

Gut residence time: about 5 h

Anaerobic processing

Aerobic processing

Gut residence time: about 1 h

Pump is organism as mobile bioreactor

Refeeding

Single-pass Bioreactor

Loop Bioreactor

(Say Red worm) (Say Earthworm)

Biosoil incubation

ECO-ENERGETICS OF AN EARTHWORM (Lavell, 1974)

Fresh Weight mg/individual 1025

Ingestion (J/g.d) 1570

Assimilation (J/g.d) 140

Production (J/g.d) 10

Respiration (J/g.d) 130

Egestion (J/g.d) 1430

EXPONENTIAL GROWTH OF BACTERIA IN EARTHWORM GUT

(no. in million) (Parle, 1959)

Forgut Midgut Hindgut

All Bacteria 475 32900 440900Actinomycetes 26 358 15000

1

3

5

7

9

20 40 60 80 100

Rats, ants

Termite Cockroach

Earthworm

11

Fly Larvae

Potworm

Redworm

Fly

Mosquito

Optimum

Optimum

Moisture (%)

pH

Niches of Earthworms and Pests (Bhawalkar, 1996)

A picture of red worms – r selected organisms in waste environment

A picture of red worms – r selected organisms in waste environment

EXPERIMENT SET -UP

E(theta) vs theta

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0 1 2 3

theta

E(th

eta)

Concentration vs Time Plot

TWO CHANNEL MODEL

α = fraction of holdup in the macrochannel

β = fraction of tracer that enters the macrochannel

TWO CHANNEL MODEL

( ) ( )( )

⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛−−

−−

−−

+

⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −

−=

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

21

1

1

2

4)1(

)1(1exp

2

11

14

1exp

2

1

PePePePe

E θαθβ

πθαβ

θαβθ

πθαβθ

( )( )τβ

ατ−−

=11

2

PePeαβ

=1

( )( ) PePe

αβ

−−

=11

2

11

tθτ

= 22

tθτ

=τβατ =1

i

io

zFRTD

λ2=

33gW

Qρμδ =

DuLPe =

= 1.9 * 10-5 cm/s2

= 0.1 mm

= 6 - 14

Diffusivity

Film Thickness

Peclet Number

THEORETICALLY CALCULATED PARAMETERS

RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for 2m soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h)

with fitted parameters α=0.67, β=0.9, Pe=9

RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for 2m soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h)

with fitted parameters α=0.67, β=0.9, Pe=9

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

theta

C(t

heta

)

C (theta) versus theta

ExpModel

EXPERIMENT AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS

Run No

Q(ml/min)

τ(min)

δ(mm)

H(lit)

A(m2)

u(m/s)

Pe

I 95 155 0.06 14.72 245 6.46 ×10-9 6.1

II 100 153 0.06 15.3 255 6.53 ×10-9 6.2

V 125 133 0.07 16.62 237 8.79 ×10-9 8.4

III 155 102 0.07 15.81 226 11.4 ×10-9 10

VI 182 91 0.08 16.56 207 14.6 ×10-9 13.9

IV 200 90 0.08 18 225 14.8 ×10-9 14.1

Run No Q(ml/min)

τ(min)

α Pe

I 95 155 0.73 12.1

II 100 153 0.69 18.3

V 125 133 0.63 9.7

III 155 102 0.75 10.1

VI 182 91 0.68 12.3

IV 200 90 0.68 11.5

RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h)

with fitted parameters α=0.25, β=0.68, Pe=0.83

RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h)

with fitted parameters α=0.25, β=0.68, Pe=0.83

Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) and RTD function E (t) vs. Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 1a (7.2 cm/h) with fitted parameters α=0.09, β=0.40, Pe=0.89

Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) and RTD function E (t) vs. Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 1a (7.2 cm/h) with fitted parameters α=0.09, β=0.40, Pe=0.89

-500

0

500

1000

050 100 150 200

Time,h

OR

P, m

ilivo

lt

ORP data (Probe 9, Depth:-2.5cm)

Fit to model Eqn 3.6.13 & 3.6.14

Equipment : Pheretima BiofilterIntial loading on bed =24.4gmCOD/LRestoration rate constant I stage =0.2 /h Restoration rate constant II stage =0.11/h

ORP (Reference calomel electrode+244 mV) restoration profile showing fit to model Pattanaik, B.R. (2000)

120

Dis

solv

ed O

2, m

g/L

.

Variation of outlet O2 concentration with time as per single cell model Pattanaik.,(2000)

Variation of outlet O2 concentration with time as per single cell model Pattanaik.,(2000)Pattanaik.,(2000)

0 20 40 60 80 100Time, min

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Experimental data

Fit to model

Pheretima biofilterT = 30.2 Cvs = 7.2 cm/hCI = 1.8mg/LCe = 6.8 mg/L Run : OTR 14

PHYSICAL MASS TRANSFER

PHYSICAL MASS TRANSFER

0

2

4

6

8

0 20 40 60 80

Time (Mins)

DO (m

g/L)

120 ml/min250 ml/min

Variation of outlet O2 concentration with time, Sathyamoorthy(2006)(2006)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (hr)

CO

D (m

g/l)

150 ml/min

COD concentration with Time Kadam.(2005).(2005)

COD REMOVAL

COMPARISON OF AIR TO WATER OXYGEN TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS

Agitated & sparged vessels 10-3 to 10-2 /sec

This work 5 x 10-3/sec

Quiescent fluids 10-5/sec

1. Continuity Equation

2. Momentum balance

From Darcy’s Law

Rate equations for substrates 3. Species Transport Equation

4. conc. balance in holding tank

vFαμ

−=

( ) ( ) 0RCD.Cvt

Ciim,ii

i =−∇∇+⋅∇+∂∂

)t(S)t(Sdt

dS21

2h −=τ

0)v(t

=ρ⋅∇+∂ρ∂

( ) Fgp)vv(tv

+ρ+−∇=ρ⋅∇+∂ρ∂

Substrate Description Rate Equation

COD Mass Transfer Kac(C1-C1*)COD Oxidation KcCs

NH4+-N Mass Transfer Kan(C2-C2*)

NH4+-N Nitrification KNN s

GOVERNING EQUATIONS

Effect of hydraulic loading on distribution of liquid on biofilterEffect of hydraulic loading on distribution of liquid on biofilter

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time,hr

C2/C

20

C2/C20 fit to Eq.3.4.7, Run 2bExptl data, C2/C20, Run 2bC2/C20 fit to Eq. 3.4.7, Run 3bExptl. Data, C2/C20, Run 3b

Run Hyd. Loading rate ka(m3/m2.hr ) (hr-1)

2b 0.6 0.223b 0.8 0.53

CFD MODEL VALIDATION: COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA

0 1 2 3 4 5 620

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (h)

CO

D (

mg/

L )

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (h)N

H4+−

N c

onc.

(m

g/L

)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (h)N

H4+−

N c

onc.

(m

g/L

)

Vb =13 L, Vl = 30 L, vr = 5x 10-5 m3/m2hkac = 2.7 h-1, kC = 0.05 h-1, kan = 11 h-1, kN =1.5 h-1,

Model Parameters: Vb =13 L, Vl = 30 L, vr = 5.1 m3/m2 h α = 0.32, β = 0.81, εd = 0.25,

Pe = 0.18, kac = 1.5 h-1, kan = 11 h-1,

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 2 4 6 8Time (h)

CO

D (

g /

L )

Model Eq. 9 & 10

Experimental

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 2 4 6 8Time (h)

CO

D (

g /

L )

Model Eq. 9 & 10

Experimental

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Time ( h)

NH

4+ -

N (

mg/

L)

Model Eq. 9 & 10

Experimental

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Time ( h)

NH

4+ -

N (

mg/

L)

Model Eq. 9 & 10

Experimental

Comparison between Dispersion model prediction and reactor performance data for sewage

Before SBT Processing

COD: 12,160mg/L

After SBT Processing

COD: 64 mg/L

DISTILLERY SPENT WASH

COLI FORM REMOVAL

Coliform removal

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

Inf luent E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7

Re c y c l i ng ( hr )

Col

iform

(CFU

/100

ml)

Total coliformfecal coliform

Effect of recycling on micro-organism removal; E0: Effluent 0 hr, E1: Effluent 1 hr etc Kadam., (2005)., (2005)

ARSENIC REMOVAL BY SOIL FILTER

• As(III) oxidation and removal As(V) via precipitation as ion complex with Fe(III).

• These results show that <10 ppb As are attained via natural oxidation and chemical precipitation revealing typically 0.3 mg As (III)/lit.hr.

• These natural rates of removal sustain via the natural aeration of the

PrecipitationFe3+ + As Filter

As Sludge30 % %Complex

Soil Filter

As (III) water As (V) Fe3++ As

PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR ARSENIC REMOVAL FROM

WATER

Initial As(III)=500 μg/l; Filter bed volume=17 lit; Flow rate = 60ml/min, Total volume of water passed per day = 30 lit, which constitute one run.

Expt. Run No Initial Arsenic Conc. μg/l

Residual Arsenic μg/l

1 500 8

2 500 8

3 500 8

4 500 8

5 500 8

6 500 8

7 500 3

8 500 6

9 500 5

10 500 4

11 500 4

12 500 4

13 500 4

ARSENIC REMOVAL IN SOIL FILTER SYSTEM

COMPARISON OF ARSENIC REMOVAL RATES

• Zero Valent iron 0.85 mg As/lit.hr( Leupinet al., 2005)

• Iron coated sand 0.75 mg As/lit.hr (Joshi and Chaudhari, 2004)

• Activated Alumina 0.15 mg As/lit.hr (Pant and Singh, 2005)Soil filter process 0.30 mg As/lit.hr

LAY OUT OF SBT MEDIA

Effect of Feed Distribution arrangementon Fluid distribution

Contours of Velocity Magnitude (m/s)

Fig 4a: Feed From Top surface onlyFig 4b: Feed From Top & Slopes vr = 0.15 m3/m2h

SBT PLANTTOP VIEW

PLANT ELEVATION

500 m3/day BPGC Plant for wastewater treatment

3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

SBT PLANT

PARAMETERS INFLUENT EFFLUENTTemp. (0C) 31.4 31.3pH 6.91 8.26Conductivity (micro S/cm) 2160 987DO (mg/l) 0.85 7.01Turbidity (NTU) 145 5.32COD (mg/L) 352 64BOD 211 7.04Ammonia (mg/L) 33.4 0.010Phosphate-P (mg/L) 0.474 0.0016SS(mg/l) 293.3 16Alkalinity(mg/L) 212 148Fecal coliform(cfu/100ml) 145*105 55Total coliform(cfu/100ml) 150*108 110

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SBT PLANT

PROCESS FEATURES

• Very low energy use intensity due to high Natural oxygen transfer in process. (0.06 kWh/kL sewage).

• Very low space intensity of 0.8-1.0 sqm/kLper day sewage.

• An engineered evergreen natural process with no moving parts except for pumps.

• No sludge due to ecology at work.• Very high bacteria, BOD, COD, suspended

solids, colour, odour, ammonia removal.• Practically maintenance free.

SBT PLANT

3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

SBT PLANT

3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

SBT PLANT

3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

Renovation of colony sewage for irrigation in sports complex

Renovation of colony sewage for irrigation in sports complex

SBT PLANT

REUSABLE WATER FROM WASTEWATER

Wastewater Treated Wastewater

Colony sewage treatment showing untreated &

treated water

Colony sewage treatment showing untreated &

treated water

SBT PLANT

Renovation of septic tank waste water for irrigation in a Research Center

Renovation of septic tank waste water for irrigation in a Research Center

SBT PLANT

Retrofitting of idle activated sludge plantRetrofitting of idle activated sludge plant

SBT PLANT

Item Features

Organic loading 150-200 g / sqm.d

Hydraulic loading 0.05 - 0.25 cum/sqm.h

Oxygen transfer 150-200 g / sqm.d

Heat generation 600-800 k.cal / sqm.d

Conversion As required

Shear rate 0.01 – 0.1 per sec.

SUMMARY OF SBT PROCESS FEATURES FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT

OPERATING FACILITIES

• Bombay Presidency Golf Club• Naval Housing Colony, Bombay• Vazir Sultan Tobacco, Hyderabad• Jindal Steel, Delhi• Taj Kiran, Gwalior• IIT Bombay• Beru Ashram Badlapur• Delhi Travel Tourism Dev Corporation• Bombay Municipal Corporation (in progress)• University of Hyderabad (in progress).

Close up of solid waste processingClose up of solid waste processing

SBT PLANT

Schematic of organic residue processing. Schematic of organic residue processing.

ROAD2

Loading Rows4

6

3839

ROAD

100 m

10 m

300 mRO

AD

RO

AD

10 m 5 m

5 mRaw organics

Underdrain

1 m

A

Semi-processed organics

ORGANIC RESIDUEPROCESSING

Restoration of municipal dumping groundsRestoration of municipal dumping grounds

Processing chicken offalsProcessing chicken offals

Item Features

Organic loading 150-200 g / sq.m.d

Product Yield 0.375 – 0.500 kg / kg

Oxygen transfer 150-200 g / sq.m.d

Heat generation 600-800 k.cal / sq.m.d

Conversion 20-30%

Products fertilizer/culture/soil

SUMMARY OF PROCESS FEATURES FOR

ORGANIC SOLID CONVERSION

Chickoo plant affected by fungal diseaseChickoo plant affected by fungal disease

Chickoo plant after restoration of soilChickoo plant after restoration of soil

ECONOMICS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT

Capacity (m3 / d) Item Unit 5 50 100 200 500 3,000 10,000

1. Space m2 40 250 400 600 1500 3500 10000 2.Civil, mech., Elec. Rs. Mil 0.10 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.5 12 25 3.Bioreactor Rs. Mil 015 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.5 17 50 Total (2 + 3) Rs. Mil 0.25 1.1 1.9 2.5 4.0 29 75 4. Power Rs./d 10 100 200 400 800 1200 4000 5. Additives Rs./d 20 100 250 500 1250 5000 15000 6. Staff Rs./d 250 250 500 500 1000 2500 5000 7. Miscellaneous Rs./d 10 50 50 150 200 300 500 Total (5 to 7) Rs./d 340 600 1000 1550 3250 9000 24500 US $ = Rs. 47.00; Power Rs. 4 per kWh ; Mil – Million; additives – Rs. 5 / kg

ECONOMICS FOR MUNICIPAL ORGANIC SOLIDSItem Unit Features

Capacity Ton/day 1 10 20 100

Space Sq.m 2000 15000 20000 50000

Civil, mech., elec. Rs. mil 0.5 2.5 4.5 15

bioreactor Rs. mil 0.2 1.0 1.5 5.0

Total (3+4) Rs. mil 0.7 3.5 6.0 20

production Ton/year 150 1500 3000 15000

Labour Rs./day 450 3500 5000 10000

Power fuel Rs./day - - 1000 5000

Additives Rs./day 400 4000 8000 20000

Misc. Rs./day 50 200 500 1000

Total (6-8) Rs./day 850 7500 15500 36000

mil. – millionmech. – mechanicalelec. – electrical Rs. – Rupees (1US$ = Rs.47)

APPLICATIONS

• Rain water harvesting via storm water conservation• Primary purification of drinking water• Primary purification of swimming pool water

• Sewage treatment for reuse in construction, cleaning & gardening, ground water recharge, make up water for swimming pools & industries etc

• Industrial wastewater treatment, • Industrial air purification

• Organic solid waste conversion • Municipal solid waste processing • Commercial production of Soil• Animal House waste processing • Hospital waste disposal

SUMMING UP

Engineered natural oxygen supply

Evergreen Environment

No moving parts

No biosludge

THANK YOU !

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity

Murram

Partially weathered Rock (Murram)

XRD ANALYSIS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity

Black soil

Artificially weathered Rock (Black soil)

XRD ANALYSIS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity Blacksoil

Murram

Comparison of Artificially weathered Rock (Black soil) with Murram (partially weathered Rock)

XRD ANALYSIS

0100200300400500600700800900

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity

Rock Powder

Primary mineral (Rock powder)

XRD ANALYSIS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity

Redsoil

Naturally weathered Rock (Red soil)

XRD ANALYSIS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity Rock-Powder

Murram

Comparison of Primary Mineral (Rock powder) with Murram (Partially weathered Rock)

XRD ANALYSIS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle

Inte

nsity REDSOIL

Murram

Comparison of Naturally weathered Rock (Red soil) with Murram (partially weathered Rock)

XRD ANALYSIS

XRD ANALYSIS

AW-1

450

550

650

750

850

950

1050

1150

1250

1350

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Angle

Inte

nsity

Artificially weathered Rock - 1

XRD ANALYSIS

AW-2

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Angle

Inte

nsity

Artificially Weathered Rock - 1

XRD ANALYSIS

AW-3

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Angle

Inte

nsity

Artificially Weathered Rock - 2

XRD ANALYSIS

AW-4

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

25 35 45 55 65Angle

Inte

nsity

Artificially Weathered Rock - 2

XRD ANALYSIS

Worli pad-5

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Angle

Inte

nsity

Artificially Weathered Rock

XRD ANALYSIS

Garden Soil

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Angle

Inte

nsity

Artificially Weathered Rock

PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS

1. US Patent No: 6890438 " Process for treatment of organic wastes"H.S.Shankar, B.R.Patnaik, U.S.Bhawalkar, issued 10 May 2005

2. "Process for treatment of Organic residues" India Patent Application MUM/384/26 April 2002, H.S.Shankar, B.R.Patnaik,U.S.Bhawalkar

3. " Process for treatment of waste water" India Patent Application MUM/383/26 April 2002, H.S.Shankar,B.R.Patnaik,U.S.Bhawalkar

4. Patnaik, B.R., Bhawalkar, U.S., Gupta, A., Shankar, H.S., “Residence Time Distribution model for Soil Filters, Water Environment Research, 76(2), 168-174,2004

5. Patnaik, B.R., Bhawalkar, V.S., Shankar, H.S., “Waste Processing in Engineered Ecosystems”, 4th World Congress on Chemical Engineering, 23-27, September 2001, Melbourne, Australia

6. Patnaik, B.R., Bhawalkar, U.S., Kadam, A, Shankar, H.S., “Soil Biotechnology for Waste Water Treatment and utilization”, 13th ASPAC 2003, International Water Works Association Conference 13-18, October, 2003, Quezon City, Philippines

PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS

7. Kadam,AM,Ojha,Goldie., Shankar,H.S Soil Biotechnology for Processing of waste waters, 9 th International conference, Indian Water Works Association, Bombay 26-27 Nov2005

8. Yeole,U.R., Patnaik,B.R.,Shankar,H.S.," Soil Biotechnology process simulation using computational fluid dynamics" Session Advanced Computations for Environmental Applications II" AIChE Annual Meeting, 7-12 Nov 2005,Austin Texas, USA

9. Pattanaik., B.R.(2000),” Processing of Wastewater in Soil Filters”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept of Chemical Engg., IIT Bombay

10. Yeole,Umesh Prabhakar"Soil Biotechnology Process Simulation using Computational Fluid dynamics" 2004

11. Bhuddhiraju,Sudheendra., "Soil Biotechnology Process simulation using Computational Fluid dynamics" 2005

MEDIA AND CULTUREUS Patent: Process for treatment of organic wastes; US

Patent no: 6890438, www.uspto.gov; Issue date: 10 May 2005 ;

Underdrain:- Stone rubble of various sizes ranging upto Gravel (200.0-2.0 mm), Very coarse sand (1.0-2.0 mm), Coarse sand (0.5-1.0 mm), Medium sand (0.25-0.5 mm), Fine sand (0.1-0.25 mm)

Media:- Formulated from soil as required and primary minerals of suitable particle size and composition

Culture:- Geophagus (Soil living) worm Pheretima elongata and bacterial culture from natural sources containing bacteria capable of processing cellulose, lignin, starch, protein, also nitrifying and denitrifying organisms. Anaerobic organisms for methanogenesis. For industrial wastes, development of appropriate culture required

Additives:- Formulated from natural materials of suitable particle size andcomposition to provide sites for respiration, CO2 capture

Bioindicators:- Green plants particularly with tap root system

Current sanitation solutions contribute, either directly or indirectly, to many of the problems faced by society today: water pollution, scarcity of fresh water, food insecurity, destruction and loss of soil fertility, global warming, and poor man health as well as loss of life.

In summary, we divert excreta away from land, consuming a limited resource – fresh water, into receiving water bodies causing water pollution. We then try to treat the water we drink. Both processes create health hazards. By diverting nutrients away from land, artificial fertilizers are added to land, creating even more water pollution, which is difficult and expensive to treat.

We must find another way. We have to design and build new systems, which promote waste as a resource and envisage local solutions and cultural attitudes and contribute to the solving society’s most pressing problems.

Source: Esrey, S. & Anderson, I., Vision 21- Environmental Sanitation Ecosystems Approach, report published by Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council ( WSSCC) World Health Organization, United Nations, 1993

EXTRACT FROM VISION 21 DOCUMENT OF WHOEXTRACT FROM VISION 21 DOCUMENT OF WHO

As(III) conversion to As(V) in Soil Filter

Precipitation of FeCl3

As(V)µg/l

ResidualAs(III)µg/l

Residual Total As

µg/l0 995.50 150.00 640.00 18.530 986.67 636.67 350.00 15.6560 1020.00 783.33 236.67 13.3490 1003.33 826.67 176.67 11.25120 1000.00 926.67 73.33 7.75150 1026.67 973.33 53.33 5.85180 1016.67 983.33 33.33 7.00210 1013.33 950.00 63.33 7.42240 1016.67 933.33 83.33 7.40

Timeminute

Total Asµg/l

AS (III) TO AS (V) CONVERSION IN SOIL FILTER SYSTEM

As(III) =1000 µg/l As(III); Flow rate= 130 ml/minute; Filter bed volume = 17 lit; Precipitation with Fe(III); (FeCl3 ) dose as Fe added 55 mg/l.